Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

August 14, 2017 | 讻状讘 讘讗讘 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Sanhedrin 29

What exactly happens in the court? 聽How are the witnesses questioned? 聽How is the majority decided? 聽If one admits to another he/she owes the other money, are there circumstances under which that person can later claim that he/she was joking or doesn’t remember ever saying that and doesn’t owe the money? 聽Do the witnesses need to be designated by the debtor or not?

拽专讜讘讬诐 讜谞转专讞拽讜 讛讜讜 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 诇讚讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 驻住讬诇谞讗 诇讻讜 诇讚讬谞讗

were relatives of his and became not related to him, as Mar Ukva鈥檚 wife, who was their sister, died. They came before him for judgment. Mar Ukva said to them: I am disqualified from adjudicating for you.

讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讚注转讬讱 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗谞谉 诪讬讬转讬谞谉 讗讬讙专转讗 诪诪注专讘讗 讚讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

They said to Mar Ukva: What is your opinion according to which you disqualify yourself? Do you rule in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, that since you have children we are still relatives? We shall bring a letter from the West, Eretz Yisrael, that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讟讜 讘拽讘讗 讚拽讬专讗 讗讬讚讘拽谞讗 讘讻讜 讚诇讗 拽讗诪讬谞讗 驻住讬诇谞讗 诇讻讜 诇讚讬谞讗 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 爪讬讬转讬转讜 讚讬谞讗

Mar Ukva said to them: Is that to say that I am stuck to you with a kav of wax [kira]? I agree that we are not considered relatives; I am saying that I am disqualified from adjudicating for you only because you will not obey the verdict, and I do not wish to participate in such judgment.

讗讜讛讘 讝讛 砖讜砖讘讬谞讜 讜讻讜壮

搂 The mishna teaches that according to Rabbi Yehuda, one who loves or one who hates one of the litigants is disqualified from bearing witness. One who loves one of the litigants; this is referring to his groomsman.

讜讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 砖讘注转 讬诪讬 讛诪砖转讛 讜专讘谞谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 讜讗讬诇讱

The Gemara asks: And for how long is the groomsman disqualified? Rabbi Abba says that Rabbi Yirmeya says that Rav says: Throughout all of the seven days of feasting. And the Rabbis say in the name of Rava: Even from the first day after the wedding and onward he is no longer disqualified; he is disqualified only on the wedding day itself.

讛砖讜谞讗 讻诇 砖诇讗 讚讘专 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 壮讜讛讜讗 诇讗 讗讜讬讘 诇讜壮 讬注讬讚谞讜 壮讜诇讗 诪讘拽砖 专注转讜壮 讬讚讬谞谞讜

搂 The mishna teaches: One who hates the litigant is referring to anyone who, out of enmity, did not speak with the litigant for three days. The Sages taught in a baraita: This halakha is derived from the verse: 鈥淎nd he was not his enemy, neither sought his harm鈥 (Numbers 35:23), that one about whom it can be stated: 鈥淎nd he was not his enemy,鈥 can testify about him. And one who 鈥渘either sought his harm鈥 can judge him.

讗砖讻讞谉 砖讜谞讗 讗讜讛讘 诪谞诇谉

The Gemara asks: We found a source for the disqualification of one who hates; from where do we derive that one who loves is disqualified?

拽专讬 讘讬讛 讛讻讬 讜讛讜讗 诇讗 讗讜讬讘 诇讜 讜诇讗 讗讜讛讘 诇讜 讬注讬讚谞讜 讜诇讗 诪讘拽砖 专注转讜 讜诇讗 讟讜讘转讜 讬讚讬谞谞讜

The Gemara answers that one should read into the verse like this: One about whom it can be stated: And he who was not his enemy nor one who loves him, can testify about him; and one who neither sought his harm nor his favor can judge him.

诪讬讚讬 讗讜讛讘 讻转讬讘 讗诇讗 住讘专讗 讛讜讗 讗讜讬讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪专讞拽讗 讚注转讬讛 讗讜讛讘 谞诪讬 诪拽专讘讗 讚注转讬讛

The Gemara asks: Is: One who loves, written in the verse? How can the verse be read in this manner? Rather, the extension of the disqualification to one who loves him as well is based on logical reasoning: What is the reason an enemy is disqualified from bearing witness? It is because he feels a sense of aversion toward that individual and might testify falsely against him. A similar logic can be employed with regard to one who loves, as well: He feels a sense of affinity toward that individual, and might testify falsely on his behalf.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 诇讗 讗讜讬讘 诇讜 讜诇讗 诪讘拽砖 专注转讜 诪讗讬 讚专砖讬 讘讬讛

The Gemara asks: And what do the Rabbis, who do not agree with Rabbi Yehuda, derive from this verse: 鈥淎nd he was not his enemy, neither sought his harm鈥?

讞讚 诇讚讬讬谉

The Gemara answers: One part of the verse is necessary for the halakha that a judge who loves or hates one of the litigants is disqualified. The Rabbis agree with this halakha, as such a judge is naturally inclined to favor one of the litigants.

讗讬讚讱 讻讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 壮讜讛讜讗 诇讗 讗讜讬讘 诇讜 讜诇讗 诪讘拽砖 专注转讜壮 诪讻讗谉 诇砖谞讬 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 砖砖讜谞讗讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 砖讗讬谉 讬讜砖讘讬谉 讘讚讬谉 讻讗讞讚

The other part of the verse is interpreted in accordance with that which is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: With regard to the verse 鈥淎nd he was not his enemy, neither sought his harm,鈥 it is derived from here that two Torah scholars who hate each other cannot sit in judgment together as one. Because of their hatred they will come to contradict each other鈥檚 rulings unjustly.

诪转谞讬壮 讻讬爪讚 讘讜讚拽讬诐 讗转 讛注讚讬诐 讛讬讜 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 讗讜转谉 诇讞讚专 讜诪讗讬讬诪讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讜诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗转 讻诇 讛讗讚诐 诇讞讜抓 讜诪砖讬讬专讬谉 讗转 讛讙讚讜诇 砖讘讛谉

MISHNA: How do the judges examine the witnesses? They bring them into a room in the courthouse and intimidate them so that they will speak only the truth. And they take all the people, other than the judges, outside so that they should not tell the other witnesses the questions the judges ask and the answers the first witness gives, and they leave only the eldest of the witnesses to testify first.

讜讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讜 讗诪讜专 讛讬讗讱 讗转讛 讬讜讚注 砖讝讛 讞讬讬讘 诇讝讛 讗诐 讗诪专 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬 壮砖讗谞讬 讞讬讬讘 诇讜壮 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬 壮砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 诇讜壮 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 壮讘驻谞讬谞讜 讛讜讚讛 诇讜 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 诇讜 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝壮

And they say to him: Say how exactly you know that this litigant owes money to that litigant, as the plaintiff claims. If he said: The defendant said to me: It is true that I owe the plaintiff, or if he says: So-and-so said to me that the defendant owes the plaintiff, the witness has said nothing and his testimony is disregarded. It is not valid testimony unless he says: The defendant admitted in our presence to the plaintiff that he owes him, e.g., two hundred dinars. By admitting to the debt in the presence of witnesses he renders himself liable to pay the amount that he mentioned.

讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 讗转 讛砖谞讬 讜讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗诐 谞诪爪讗讜 讚讘专讬讛谉 诪讻讜讜谞讬谉 谞讜砖讗讬谉 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 讘讚讘专

And afterward they bring in the second witness and examine him in the same manner. If their statements are found to be congruent the judges then discuss the matter.

砖谞讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讝讻讗讬 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讞讬讬讘 讝讻讗讬 砖谞讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讝讻讗讬 讞讬讬讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讞讬讬讘 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讝讻讗讬 讗驻讬诇讜 砖谞讬诐 诪讝讻讬谉 讗讜 砖谞讬诐 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讬讜住讬驻讜 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉

If the opinions of the judges are divided, as two judges say that the defendant is exempt from payment and one says he is liable to pay, he is exempt. If two say he is liable and one says he is exempt, he is liable. If one says he is liable and one says he is exempt, or even if two of the judges deem him exempt or two of them deem him liable, and the other one says: I do not know, the court must add more judges and then rule in accordance with the majority opinion. This is because the one who abstains is considered as though he is not a member of the court.

讙诪专讜 讗转 讛讚讘专 讛讬讜 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 讗讜转谉 讛讙讚讜诇 砖讘讚讬讬谞讬谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讗转讛 讝讻讗讬 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讗转讛 讞讬讬讘

After the judges finish the matter and reach a decision, they bring in the litigants. The greatest of the judges says: So-and-so, you are exempt from paying; or: So-and-so, you are liable to pay.

讜诪谞讬讬谉 诇讻砖讬爪讗 诇讗 讬讗诪专 讗谞讬 诪讝讻讛 讜讞讘讬专讬讬 诪讞讬讬讘讬诐 讗讘诇 诪讛 讗注砖讛 砖讞讘讬专讬讬 专讘讜 注诇讬 注诇 讝讛 谞讗诪专 诇讗 转诇讱 专讻讬诇 讘注诪讬讱 讜讗讜诪专 讛讜诇讱 专讻讬诇 诪讙诇讛 住讜讚

And from where is it derived that when the judge leaves the courtroom he may not say: I deemed you exempt and my colleagues deemed you liable, but what can I do, as my colleagues outnumbered me and consequently you were deemed liable? About this it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall not go as a talebearer among your people鈥 (Leviticus 19:16), and it says: 鈥淥ne who goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets, but one who is of a faithful spirit conceals a matter鈥 (Proverbs 11:13).

讙诪壮 讛讬讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讛讜 谞砖讬讗讬诐 讜专讜讞 讜讙砖诐 讗讬谉 讗讬砖 诪转讛诇诇 讘诪转转 砖拽专

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the judges intimidate the witnesses. The Gemara asks: What do we say to them? Rav Yehuda says that this is what we say to them: It is stated: 鈥淎s clouds and wind without rain, so is he who boasts himself of a false gift鈥 (Proverbs 25:14). In other words, there will be no rain and no blessing from your deeds if you lie.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讬讻诇讬 诇诪讬诪专 砖讘 砖谞讬 讛讜讛 讻驻谞讗 讜讗讘讘讗 讗讜诪谞讗 诇讗 讞诇讬祝

Rava said to him: If so, false witnesses can say to themselves that they do not have to worry about this punishment, according to the folk saying: Seven years there was a famine, but over the craftsman鈥檚 door it did not pass. If the witnesses are not farmers, they do not need to worry over lack of rain. Consequently, they will disregard this concern.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讛讜 诪驻讬抓 讜讞专讘 讜讞抓 砖谞讜谉 讗讬砖 注谞讛 讘专注讛讜 注讚 砖拽专

Rather, Rava said that we say this verse to them: 鈥淎s a hammer, and a sword, and a sharp arrow, so is a man who bears false witness against his neighbor鈥 (Proverbs 25:18), meaning that a false witness will die prematurely.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讬讻诇讬 诇诪讬诪专 砖讘 砖谞讬 讛讜讛 诪讜转谞讗 讜讗讬谞讬砖 讘诇讗 砖谞讬讛 诇讗 砖讻讬讘

Rav Ashi said to him: Here too, false witnesses can say to themselves a folk saying: Seven years there was a pestilence, but a man who has not reached his years did not die; everyone dies at his predestined time. Therefore, they will disregard this concern as well.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇讬 谞转谉 讘专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讛讜 住讛讚讬 砖拽专讬 讗讗讜讙专讬讬讛讜 讝讬诇讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讜砖讬讘讜 砖谞讬诐 讗谞砖讬诐 讘谞讬 讘诇讬注诇 谞讙讚讜 讜讬注讚讛讜 诇讗诪专 讘专讻转 讗诇讛讬诐 讜诪诇讱

The Gemara presents another suggestion: Rather, Rav Ashi said: Natan bar Mar Zutra said to me that we say to them that false witnesses are belittled even by those who hire them, and all the more so by others; as it is written that Jezebel said when she ordered witnesses to be hired to testify against Naboth: 鈥淎nd set two men, base fellows, before him, and let them bear witness against him, saying: You cursed God and the king鈥 (I聽Kings 21:10). Even Jezebel, who gave the orders to hire them, called them 鈥渂ase fellows.鈥

讗诐 讗诪专 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬 讻讜壮 注讚 砖讬讗诪专讜 讘驻谞讬谞讜 讛讜讚讛 诇讜 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 诇讜 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝

搂 The mishna teaches that if the witness said: The defendant said to me: It is true that I owe him, his testimony is disregarded unless he says: The defendant admitted in our presence to the plaintiff that he owes him two hundred dinars.

诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 爪专讬讱 砖讬讗诪专 讗转诐 注讚讬讬

The Gemara comments: This supports the opinion of Rav Yehuda, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The debtor needs to say to the witnesses to the loan or in his admission that he owes the creditor: You are my witnesses. Otherwise, their testimony is not valid.

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 壮诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱壮 讗诪专 诇讜 壮讛谉壮 诇诪讞专 讗诪专 诇讜 壮转谞讛讜 诇讬壮 讗诪专 壮诪砖讟讛 讗谞讬 讘讱壮 驻讟讜专

It was also stated that Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If one said to another: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, i.e., you owe me one hundred dinars, and the other said to him: Yes, and the next day the claimant said to him: Give it to me, if the other then said to him: I was teasing you, i.e., I did not mean it seriously when I said that I owed it to you, the respondent is exempt.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 壮诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱壮 讗诪专 诇讜 壮讛谉壮 诇诪讞专 讗诪专 诇讜 壮转谞讛讜 诇讬壮 讗诪专 诇讜 壮诪砖讟讛 讗谞讬 讘讱壮 驻讟讜专

This is also taught in a baraita: If one said to another: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the other said to him: Yes, and the next day the claimant said to him: Give it to me, if the other then said to him: I was teasing you, the respondent is exempt.

讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻诪讬谉 诇讜 注讚讬诐 讗讞讜专讬 讙讚专 讜讗诪专 诇讜 壮诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱壮 讗诪专 诇讜 壮讛谉壮 壮专爪讜谞讱 砖转讜讚讛 讘驻谞讬 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬壮 讗诪专 诇讜 壮诪转讬讬专讗 讗谞讬 砖诪讗 转讻驻讬谞讬 诇讚讬谉壮 诇诪讞专 讗诪专 诇讜 壮转谞讬讛讜 诇讬壮 讗诪专 诇讜 壮诪砖讟讛 讗谞讬 讘讱壮 驻讟讜专

And moreover, the respondent is exempt even in a case where the claimant hid witnesses for the respondent behind a fence so that the respondent would not see them, and said to him: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the respondent said to him: Yes, and the claimant then said to him: Do you wish to admit the debt in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so? And the respondent said to him: I am afraid to do so, lest you compel me to go to judgment, where, based on their testimony, you will be given the right to forcibly take the money from me whenever you want. But between you and me, I admit that I owe you. And the next day the claimant said to him: Give me the one hundred dinars that you admitted to owing me, and the respondent said to him: I was teasing you. The respondent is exempt because he can claim that he stated his admission only to appease the claimant temporarily, and did not mean to actually admit to owing the money, as he did not know that there were witnesses present.

讜讗讬谉 讟讜注谞讬谉 诇诪住讬转

But the judges do not advance a claim on behalf of an inciter, i.e., one who is accused of inciting others to idol worship.

诪住讬转 诪讗谉 讚讻专 砖诪讬讛 讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗诐 诇讗 讟注谉 讗讬谉 讟讜注谞讬谉 诇讜 讜讘讚讬谞讬 谞驻砖讜转 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讟注谉 讟讜注谞讬谉 诇讜 讜讗讬谉 讟讜注谞讬谉 诇诪住讬转

The Gemara asks: An inciter? Who mentioned anything about it? This matter was not discussed in the baraita. The Gemara answers: The baraita is incomplete, and this is what it is teaching: If the defendant did not advance a claim that he was teasing the plaintiff, the judges do not advance this claim for him. Apparently, he stated his admission seriously. But in cases of capital law, even if the defendant did not advance any claim on his own behalf, the judges advance a claim on his behalf. But the judges do not advance claims on behalf of an inciter.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪住讬转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诪讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 诪驻讬专拽讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬 砖讗谞讬 诪住讬转 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 诇讗 转讞诪诇 讜诇讗 转讻住讛 注诇讬讜

The Gemara asks: What is different about an inciter, that the court does not seek to deem him innocent? Rabbi 岣ma bar 岣nina says: I heard at the lecture of Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba that an inciter is different, as the Merciful One states concerning him: 鈥淣either shall you spare, neither shall you conceal him鈥 (Deuteronomy 13:9). In this unique case, the court is not required to try to deem him innocent.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 诪谞讬讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讟讜注谞讬谉 诇诪住讬转 诪谞讞砖 讛拽讚诪讜谞讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪诇讗讬 讛专讘讛 讟注谞讜转 讛讬讛 诇讜 诇谞讞砖 诇讟注讜谉 讜诇讗 讟注谉 讜诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诇讗 讟注谉 诇讜 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诇驻讬 砖诇讗 讟注谉 讛讜讗

Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣an says that Rabbi Yonatan says: From where is it derived that the judges do not advance a claim on behalf of an inciter? It is derived from the incident of the primordial snake who tempted Eve; he was the first inciter. As Rabbi Simlai says: The snake could have advanced many claims on its own behalf, but it did not claim them. And for what reason did the Holy One, Blessed be He, not advance these claims for it, deeming the snake exempt from punishment? Because the snake did not advance these claims itself.

诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诪专 讚讘专讬 讛专讘 讜讚讘专讬 转诇诪讬讚 讚讘专讬 诪讬 砖讜诪注讬谉 讚讘专讬 讛专讘 砖讜诪注讬谉

The Gemara asks: What could he have said? The Gemara answers: The snake could have said that it is not to blame, as when there is a contradiction between the statement of the teacher and the statement of the student, whose statement should one listen to? One should listen to the statement of the teacher. Since God instructed Adam and Eve not to eat from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, Adam and Eve should have heeded God鈥檚 words and not those of the snake.

讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 诪谞讬讬谉 砖讻诇 讛诪讜住讬祝 讙讜专注 砖谞讗诪专 讗诪专 讗诇讛讬诐 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 诪诪谞讜 讜诇讗 转讙注讜 讘讜

岣zkiyya says: From where is it derived that anyone who adds, subtracts? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated that Eve said: 鈥淕od has said: You shall not eat of it, neither shall you touch it鈥 (Genesis 3:3), whereas God had actually rendered prohibited only eating from the tree but not touching it, as it is stated: 鈥淏ut of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it鈥 (Genesis 2:17). Because Eve added that there was a prohibition against touching the tree, the snake showed her that touching it does not cause her to die, and she consequently sinned by eating from it as well.

专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讗诪转讬诐 讜讞爪讬 讗专讻讜

Rav Mesharshiyya says that the idea that one who adds, subtracts can also be proven from here: 鈥淭wo cubits [amatayim] and a half shall be its length鈥 (Exodus 25:10). Without the letter alef at the beginning of the word amatayim, it would be read matayim, which would mean two hundred cubits. The addition of the alef therefore reduces this term to only two cubits.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 注砖转讬 注砖专讛 讬专讬注转

Rav Ashi says another example: In the verse: 鈥淓leven [ashtei esrei] curtains鈥 (Exodus 26:7), without the letter ayin at the beginning of the phrase it would read shtei esrei, twelve. Therefore, the additional letter ayin reduces the amount from twelve to eleven.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讚讗诪专 诪砖讟讛 讗谞讬 讘讱 讗讘诇 讗诪专

Abaye says: With regard to the case of one who denies a debt to which he admitted in the presence of hidden witnesses, the Sages taught that he is exempt only in a case where he says: I was teasing you. But if he says:

诇讗 讛讬讜 讚讘专讬诐 诪注讜诇诐 讛讜讞讝拽 讻驻专谉

These matters never occurred, i.e., I never admitted to this, the defendant assumes the presumptive status of one who falsely denies his debts, as the witnesses heard his admission. Consequently, he is not trusted to take an oath that he is exempt.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讗讚讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讚讻讚讬 诇讗 讚讻讬专讬 讗讬谞砖讬

Rav Pappa, son of Rav A岣 bar Adda, says: This is what we say in the name of Rava: The defendant is not rendered a liar, because people do not remember all frivolous matters. Since the admission was not made seriously, perhaps the defendant forgot the incident. Therefore, his denial of its having occurred was not necessarily an outright lie.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗讻诪讬谉 诇讬讛 注讚讬诐 诇讞讘专讬讛 讘讻讬诇转讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谉 讗诪专 注讬专讬 讜砖讻讘讬 诇讬讛讜讜 注诇讱 住讛讚讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who hid witnesses in the canopy above his bed to hear the statement of another. That certain man said to him: I have one hundred dinars in your possession. The latter said to him: Yes. The claimant then said: Let those awake and those asleep bear witness about you, hoping to induce him to agree to this testimony, as the respondent might assume that everyone was asleep. The latter said to him: No. When the matter came to court Rav Kahana said: Since he said no to him, his admission did not render him liable.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗讻诪讬谉 注讚讬诐 讘拽讬讘专讗 诇讞讘专讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谉 讞讬讬 讜诪讬转讬 诇讬讛讜讜 注诇讱 住讛讚讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗

The Gemara relates another incident: There was a certain man who hid witnesses in a grave to hear the statement of another. That certain man said to him: I have one hundred dinars in your possession. The latter said to him: Yes. The claimant then said: Let the living and the dead bear witness about you. The respondent said to him: No. Rabbi Shimon said: Since he said no to him, his admission did not render him liable.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 驻驻讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讛讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 爪专讬讱 砖讬讗诪专 讗转诐 注讚讬讬 诇讗 砖谞讗 讻讬 讗诪专 诇讜讛 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讻讬 讗诪专 诪诇讜讛 讜砖转讬拽 诇讜讛 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讜讛 诇讗 讗讘诇 讗讬 砖转讬拽 讛讻讬 谞诪讬

Ravina said, and some say Rav Pappa said it: Conclude from it that with regard to that which Rav Yehuda says that Rav says, that one needs to say to the witnesses of the admission: You are my witnesses, there is no difference whether the debtor said it, and there is no difference whether the creditor said it and the debtor remained silent. The inference is that the reason the Sages deemed the purported debtor exempt in the above cases is that the debtor explicitly said no, i.e., that he does not accept the witnesses, but had he remained silent his admission would have indeed rendered him liable.

讛讛讜讗 讚讛讜讛 拽专讜 诇讬讛 拽讘 专砖讜 讗诪专 诪讗谉 诪住讬拽 讘讬 讗诇讗 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讗转讜 转讘注讜讛讜 诇讚讬谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man whom people called: A kav of debts, as everyone claimed debts from him, who once said: Who can claim debts from me, other than so-and-so and so-and-so? I do not owe money to as many as assumed. Those whom he admitted that he owed came and took him to judgment before Rav Na岣an to claim what he owed them, and he responded in court that his admittance was in jest.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讚诐 注砖讜讬 砖诇讗 诇讛砖讘讬注 讗转 注爪诪讜

Rav Na岣an said: A person is prone to make false statements so as not to make himself appear sated, i.e., it is possible that he might say falsely in public that he owes money in order that he should not be considered wealthy. Therefore, as long as he has not made a proper admission that he owes a specific sum to a specific individual, he is not liable.

讛讛讜讗 讚讛讜讜 拽专讜 诇讬讛 注讻讘专讗 讚砖讻讬讘 讗讚讬谞专讬 讻讬 拽讗 砖讻讬讘 讗诪专 驻诇谞讬讗 讜驻诇谞讬讗 诪住拽讜 讘讬 讝讜讝讬 讘转专 讚砖讻讬讘 讗转讜 转讘注讬谞讛讜 诇讬讜专砖讬谉

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man whom people called: A mouse that lies on dinars, as he was a miser who did not benefit from his money, like a mouse that sits and safeguards gold dinars. This man said on his deathbed: So-and-so and so-and-so claim dinars from me. After he died, they came and sued the heirs.

讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讚诐 注砖讜讬 砖诇讗 诇讛砖讘讬注 讗转 注爪诪讜 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诪讞讬讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 诇讗

They came to judgment before Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei. He said to them: When we say a person is prone to make false statements so as not to make himself appear sated, this statement applies to an admission during his lifetime. But after death, i.e., on his deathbed, this does not apply; rather, we presume he told the truth.

驻专注讜 驻诇讙讗 转讘注讬谞讛讜 诇讚讬谞讗 诇讗讬讚讱 驻诇讙讗 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻砖诐 砖讗讚诐 注砖讜讬 砖诇讗 诇讛砖讘讬注 讗转 注爪诪讜 讻讱 讗讚诐 注砖讜讬 砖诇讗 诇讛砖讘讬注 讗转 讘谞讬讜 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 谞讬讝讬诇 讜谞讬讛讚专 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻讘专 讛讜专讛 讝拽谉

The heirs paid half the amount of the claim. The claimants then sued them for the other half. They came to judgment before Rabbi 岣yya. Rabbi 岣yya said to them: Just as a person is prone to make false statements so as not to make himself appear sated, so too, a person is prone to make false statements so as not to make his sons appear sated. One might claim falsely on his deathbed that he owes money so that his children will not be considered wealthy. Therefore, there is no room for a claim against the heirs. The heirs then said to him: If so, let us go and overturn the former verdict, and retrieve the amount we paid the claimants. Rabbi 岣yya said to them: The elder, i.e., Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, has already issued a ruling in this case, and it is not in my power to overturn his ruling.

讛讜讚讛 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 讜拽谞讜 诪讬讚讜 讻讜转讘讬谉 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉

搂 If one made an admission in the presence of two witnesses that he owes money and they performed a formal act of acquisition with him to verify the admission, the witnesses can write a record of the admission in a document and sign it, thereby granting the creditor more rights. But if they did not perform a formal act of acquisition they may not write a record of the admission in a document, as the debtor presumably wants the loan to retain its status as a loan by oral agreement, which grants fewer rights to the creditor than a loan with a promissory note.

讘驻谞讬 砖诇砖讛 讜诇讗 拽谞讜 诪讬讚讜 专讘 讗诪讬 讗诪专 讻讜转讘讬谉 讜专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗 讜讞砖 诇讛 专讘 诇讛讗 讚专讘 讗住讬

If he made an admission in the presence of three witnesses and they did not perform a formal act of acquisition with him, Rav Ami says: They can write a record of the admission in a document. Since the admission was made in the presence of three individuals, who are considered a court, it is permitted for a court to write its verdicts. And Rav Asi says: They may not write it in a document; perhaps the debtor intended for them to serve only as witnesses, not as a court. There was an incident in which a person admitted his debt before three witnesses, and Rav was concerned for this opinion of Rav Asi, and ruled that they may not write a record of the admission.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讛讗 讗讜讚讬转讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讻转讘讬谞谉 讜讝讬诪谞讬谉 诇讗 讻转讘讬谞谉 讻谞讬驻讬 讜讬转讘讬 诇讗 讻转讘讬谞谉 讻谞驻讬谞讛讜 讗讬讛讜 讻转讘讬谞谉

Rav Adda bar Ahava says: With regard to this document of admission, sometimes we write it and sometimes we do not write it. If the three witnesses were gathered and sitting when the debtor made his admission before them, we do not write it, as perhaps he did not intend for them to serve as a court. But if the debtor gathered them, we write the document of admission, as the fact that he took care to bring three people and not just two proves that he intended for them to serve as a court.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讻谞驻讬谞讛讜 讗讬讛讜 诇讗 讻转讘讬谞谉 注讚 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讜讜 注诇讬 讚讬讬谞讬

Rava says: Even if he gathered them we do not write it, unless he says to them: Be my judges.

诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪专 讛讜讜 注诇讬 讚讬讬谞讬 诇讗 讻转讘讬谞谉 注讚 讚拽讘注讬 讚讜讻转讗 讜砖诇讞讬 讜诪讝诪谞讬 诇讬讛 诇讘讬 讚讬谞讗

Mar bar Rav Ashi says: Even if he says: Be my judges, we do not write it unless they establish a place for judgment and send messengers and summon him to court. Unless the entire procedure of an admission in court is implemented, the debtor may not have intended that they serve as a court with regard to this matter.

讛讜讚讛 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬 讜拽谞讜 诪讬讚讜 讻讜转讘讬谉 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讘诪拽专拽注讬 讜诇讗 拽谞讜 诪讬讚讜 诪讗讬 讗诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讗诪专 讻讜转讘讬谉 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讜转讘讬谉

If he made an admission with regard to movable property that he owes, and the witnesses performed a formal act of acquisition with him, they can write a record of the admission in a document; but if they did not perform a formal act of acquisition they may not write a record of the admission. But if he made an admission with regard to land, and they did not perform a formal act of acquisition with him, what is the halakha? Is it considered as though an act of acquisition was performed, as land is always available for collection? Ameimar says: They may not write it. Mar Zutra says: They may write it. And the halakha is that they may write it.

专讘讬谞讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇讚诪讛专讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讚诪讛专讬讗 诇专讘讬谞讗 诪讟诇讟诇讬 讜讗讬转谞讛讜 讘注讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诪拽专拽注讬 讚诪讜 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讞住专讬 讙讜讘讬讬谞讗 诇讗

Ravina happened to come to Damharya. Rav Dimi bar Rav Huna of Damharya said to Ravina: If one makes an admission that he owes movable property that is extant, i.e., it is available to be taken immediately, what is the halakha? Should it be considered like land, as it is similarly available for collection, and therefore the witnesses can write a record of the admission? Ravina said to him: It is considered like land. Rav Ashi says: Since it still lacks collection, i.e., it has not been physically transferred from one party to the other, it is not considered like land, and the witnesses may not write a record of the admission unless the debtor asks them to write it.

讛讛讬讗 讗讜讚讬转讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 讻转讜讘 讘讛 讗诪专 诇谞讗 讻转讘讜 讜讞转诪讜 讜讛讘讜 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖

搂 With regard to a certain document of admission in which the following statement was not written: He, the one making the admission, said to us: Write a deed, and sign it, and give it to the creditor, Abaye and Rava both say that this is a case in which the principle of Reish Lakish is applicable.

讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讞讝拽讛 讗讬谉 讛注讚讬诐 讞讜转诪讬谉 注诇 讛砖讟专 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 谞注砖讛 讙讚讜诇

As Reish Lakish says: There is a presumption that witnesses do not sign on the document unless the deal was transacted with each party being an adult, even if it is not mentioned explicitly in the document that the witnesses verified this. This reflects the principle that a document is not written by a scribe and signed by witnesses unless they know that the action to which it attests was performed appropriately. In light of this, the fact that a certain detail is missing from the wording of the document does not prove that the detail did not take place, as the action was presumably performed properly. Consequently, a document of admission lacking the sentence: He said to us: Write a deed, and sign it, and give it to the creditor, is valid.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讬 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讗谞谉 诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讜住驻专讬 讚讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讬讚注讬

Rav Pappi objects to this, and some say it is Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, who raises this objection: Is there anything that we, the Sages, do not know, and the scribes of the court do know? Since not all of the Sages are aware that the witnesses of an admission cannot write a deed of admission unless the one making the admission asks them to, the scribes certainly cannot be expected to ensure that this condition is fulfilled.

砖讗讬诇讬谞讛讜 诇住驻专讬 讚讗讘讬讬 讜讬讚注讬 诇住驻专讬 讚专讘讗 讜讬讚注讬

The Gemara relates that Abaye鈥檚 scribes were asked whether they were aware of this halakha, and they answered that they were aware of it. Rava鈥檚 scribes were also asked, and they were also aware of it. Apparently, since writing documents is their profession, scribes are aware of the relevant halakhot.

讛讛讬讗 讗讜讚讬转讗 讚讛讜讛 讻转讘 讘讬讛 讚讜讻专谉 驻讬转讙诪讬

The Gemara recounts: There was a certain document of admission in which it was written that it was a record of the proceedings that took place in the presence of the witnesses,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Sanhedrin 29

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sanhedrin 29

拽专讜讘讬诐 讜谞转专讞拽讜 讛讜讜 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 诇讚讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 驻住讬诇谞讗 诇讻讜 诇讚讬谞讗

were relatives of his and became not related to him, as Mar Ukva鈥檚 wife, who was their sister, died. They came before him for judgment. Mar Ukva said to them: I am disqualified from adjudicating for you.

讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讚注转讬讱 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗谞谉 诪讬讬转讬谞谉 讗讬讙专转讗 诪诪注专讘讗 讚讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

They said to Mar Ukva: What is your opinion according to which you disqualify yourself? Do you rule in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, that since you have children we are still relatives? We shall bring a letter from the West, Eretz Yisrael, that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讟讜 讘拽讘讗 讚拽讬专讗 讗讬讚讘拽谞讗 讘讻讜 讚诇讗 拽讗诪讬谞讗 驻住讬诇谞讗 诇讻讜 诇讚讬谞讗 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 爪讬讬转讬转讜 讚讬谞讗

Mar Ukva said to them: Is that to say that I am stuck to you with a kav of wax [kira]? I agree that we are not considered relatives; I am saying that I am disqualified from adjudicating for you only because you will not obey the verdict, and I do not wish to participate in such judgment.

讗讜讛讘 讝讛 砖讜砖讘讬谞讜 讜讻讜壮

搂 The mishna teaches that according to Rabbi Yehuda, one who loves or one who hates one of the litigants is disqualified from bearing witness. One who loves one of the litigants; this is referring to his groomsman.

讜讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 砖讘注转 讬诪讬 讛诪砖转讛 讜专讘谞谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 讜讗讬诇讱

The Gemara asks: And for how long is the groomsman disqualified? Rabbi Abba says that Rabbi Yirmeya says that Rav says: Throughout all of the seven days of feasting. And the Rabbis say in the name of Rava: Even from the first day after the wedding and onward he is no longer disqualified; he is disqualified only on the wedding day itself.

讛砖讜谞讗 讻诇 砖诇讗 讚讘专 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 壮讜讛讜讗 诇讗 讗讜讬讘 诇讜壮 讬注讬讚谞讜 壮讜诇讗 诪讘拽砖 专注转讜壮 讬讚讬谞谞讜

搂 The mishna teaches: One who hates the litigant is referring to anyone who, out of enmity, did not speak with the litigant for three days. The Sages taught in a baraita: This halakha is derived from the verse: 鈥淎nd he was not his enemy, neither sought his harm鈥 (Numbers 35:23), that one about whom it can be stated: 鈥淎nd he was not his enemy,鈥 can testify about him. And one who 鈥渘either sought his harm鈥 can judge him.

讗砖讻讞谉 砖讜谞讗 讗讜讛讘 诪谞诇谉

The Gemara asks: We found a source for the disqualification of one who hates; from where do we derive that one who loves is disqualified?

拽专讬 讘讬讛 讛讻讬 讜讛讜讗 诇讗 讗讜讬讘 诇讜 讜诇讗 讗讜讛讘 诇讜 讬注讬讚谞讜 讜诇讗 诪讘拽砖 专注转讜 讜诇讗 讟讜讘转讜 讬讚讬谞谞讜

The Gemara answers that one should read into the verse like this: One about whom it can be stated: And he who was not his enemy nor one who loves him, can testify about him; and one who neither sought his harm nor his favor can judge him.

诪讬讚讬 讗讜讛讘 讻转讬讘 讗诇讗 住讘专讗 讛讜讗 讗讜讬讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪专讞拽讗 讚注转讬讛 讗讜讛讘 谞诪讬 诪拽专讘讗 讚注转讬讛

The Gemara asks: Is: One who loves, written in the verse? How can the verse be read in this manner? Rather, the extension of the disqualification to one who loves him as well is based on logical reasoning: What is the reason an enemy is disqualified from bearing witness? It is because he feels a sense of aversion toward that individual and might testify falsely against him. A similar logic can be employed with regard to one who loves, as well: He feels a sense of affinity toward that individual, and might testify falsely on his behalf.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 诇讗 讗讜讬讘 诇讜 讜诇讗 诪讘拽砖 专注转讜 诪讗讬 讚专砖讬 讘讬讛

The Gemara asks: And what do the Rabbis, who do not agree with Rabbi Yehuda, derive from this verse: 鈥淎nd he was not his enemy, neither sought his harm鈥?

讞讚 诇讚讬讬谉

The Gemara answers: One part of the verse is necessary for the halakha that a judge who loves or hates one of the litigants is disqualified. The Rabbis agree with this halakha, as such a judge is naturally inclined to favor one of the litigants.

讗讬讚讱 讻讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 壮讜讛讜讗 诇讗 讗讜讬讘 诇讜 讜诇讗 诪讘拽砖 专注转讜壮 诪讻讗谉 诇砖谞讬 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 砖砖讜谞讗讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 砖讗讬谉 讬讜砖讘讬谉 讘讚讬谉 讻讗讞讚

The other part of the verse is interpreted in accordance with that which is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: With regard to the verse 鈥淎nd he was not his enemy, neither sought his harm,鈥 it is derived from here that two Torah scholars who hate each other cannot sit in judgment together as one. Because of their hatred they will come to contradict each other鈥檚 rulings unjustly.

诪转谞讬壮 讻讬爪讚 讘讜讚拽讬诐 讗转 讛注讚讬诐 讛讬讜 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 讗讜转谉 诇讞讚专 讜诪讗讬讬诪讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讜诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗转 讻诇 讛讗讚诐 诇讞讜抓 讜诪砖讬讬专讬谉 讗转 讛讙讚讜诇 砖讘讛谉

MISHNA: How do the judges examine the witnesses? They bring them into a room in the courthouse and intimidate them so that they will speak only the truth. And they take all the people, other than the judges, outside so that they should not tell the other witnesses the questions the judges ask and the answers the first witness gives, and they leave only the eldest of the witnesses to testify first.

讜讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讜 讗诪讜专 讛讬讗讱 讗转讛 讬讜讚注 砖讝讛 讞讬讬讘 诇讝讛 讗诐 讗诪专 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬 壮砖讗谞讬 讞讬讬讘 诇讜壮 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬 壮砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 诇讜壮 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 壮讘驻谞讬谞讜 讛讜讚讛 诇讜 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 诇讜 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝壮

And they say to him: Say how exactly you know that this litigant owes money to that litigant, as the plaintiff claims. If he said: The defendant said to me: It is true that I owe the plaintiff, or if he says: So-and-so said to me that the defendant owes the plaintiff, the witness has said nothing and his testimony is disregarded. It is not valid testimony unless he says: The defendant admitted in our presence to the plaintiff that he owes him, e.g., two hundred dinars. By admitting to the debt in the presence of witnesses he renders himself liable to pay the amount that he mentioned.

讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 讗转 讛砖谞讬 讜讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗诐 谞诪爪讗讜 讚讘专讬讛谉 诪讻讜讜谞讬谉 谞讜砖讗讬谉 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 讘讚讘专

And afterward they bring in the second witness and examine him in the same manner. If their statements are found to be congruent the judges then discuss the matter.

砖谞讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讝讻讗讬 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讞讬讬讘 讝讻讗讬 砖谞讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讝讻讗讬 讞讬讬讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讞讬讬讘 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讝讻讗讬 讗驻讬诇讜 砖谞讬诐 诪讝讻讬谉 讗讜 砖谞讬诐 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讬讜住讬驻讜 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉

If the opinions of the judges are divided, as two judges say that the defendant is exempt from payment and one says he is liable to pay, he is exempt. If two say he is liable and one says he is exempt, he is liable. If one says he is liable and one says he is exempt, or even if two of the judges deem him exempt or two of them deem him liable, and the other one says: I do not know, the court must add more judges and then rule in accordance with the majority opinion. This is because the one who abstains is considered as though he is not a member of the court.

讙诪专讜 讗转 讛讚讘专 讛讬讜 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 讗讜转谉 讛讙讚讜诇 砖讘讚讬讬谞讬谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讗转讛 讝讻讗讬 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讗转讛 讞讬讬讘

After the judges finish the matter and reach a decision, they bring in the litigants. The greatest of the judges says: So-and-so, you are exempt from paying; or: So-and-so, you are liable to pay.

讜诪谞讬讬谉 诇讻砖讬爪讗 诇讗 讬讗诪专 讗谞讬 诪讝讻讛 讜讞讘讬专讬讬 诪讞讬讬讘讬诐 讗讘诇 诪讛 讗注砖讛 砖讞讘讬专讬讬 专讘讜 注诇讬 注诇 讝讛 谞讗诪专 诇讗 转诇讱 专讻讬诇 讘注诪讬讱 讜讗讜诪专 讛讜诇讱 专讻讬诇 诪讙诇讛 住讜讚

And from where is it derived that when the judge leaves the courtroom he may not say: I deemed you exempt and my colleagues deemed you liable, but what can I do, as my colleagues outnumbered me and consequently you were deemed liable? About this it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall not go as a talebearer among your people鈥 (Leviticus 19:16), and it says: 鈥淥ne who goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets, but one who is of a faithful spirit conceals a matter鈥 (Proverbs 11:13).

讙诪壮 讛讬讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讛讜 谞砖讬讗讬诐 讜专讜讞 讜讙砖诐 讗讬谉 讗讬砖 诪转讛诇诇 讘诪转转 砖拽专

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the judges intimidate the witnesses. The Gemara asks: What do we say to them? Rav Yehuda says that this is what we say to them: It is stated: 鈥淎s clouds and wind without rain, so is he who boasts himself of a false gift鈥 (Proverbs 25:14). In other words, there will be no rain and no blessing from your deeds if you lie.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讬讻诇讬 诇诪讬诪专 砖讘 砖谞讬 讛讜讛 讻驻谞讗 讜讗讘讘讗 讗讜诪谞讗 诇讗 讞诇讬祝

Rava said to him: If so, false witnesses can say to themselves that they do not have to worry about this punishment, according to the folk saying: Seven years there was a famine, but over the craftsman鈥檚 door it did not pass. If the witnesses are not farmers, they do not need to worry over lack of rain. Consequently, they will disregard this concern.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讛讜 诪驻讬抓 讜讞专讘 讜讞抓 砖谞讜谉 讗讬砖 注谞讛 讘专注讛讜 注讚 砖拽专

Rather, Rava said that we say this verse to them: 鈥淎s a hammer, and a sword, and a sharp arrow, so is a man who bears false witness against his neighbor鈥 (Proverbs 25:18), meaning that a false witness will die prematurely.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讬讻诇讬 诇诪讬诪专 砖讘 砖谞讬 讛讜讛 诪讜转谞讗 讜讗讬谞讬砖 讘诇讗 砖谞讬讛 诇讗 砖讻讬讘

Rav Ashi said to him: Here too, false witnesses can say to themselves a folk saying: Seven years there was a pestilence, but a man who has not reached his years did not die; everyone dies at his predestined time. Therefore, they will disregard this concern as well.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇讬 谞转谉 讘专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讛讜 住讛讚讬 砖拽专讬 讗讗讜讙专讬讬讛讜 讝讬诇讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讜砖讬讘讜 砖谞讬诐 讗谞砖讬诐 讘谞讬 讘诇讬注诇 谞讙讚讜 讜讬注讚讛讜 诇讗诪专 讘专讻转 讗诇讛讬诐 讜诪诇讱

The Gemara presents another suggestion: Rather, Rav Ashi said: Natan bar Mar Zutra said to me that we say to them that false witnesses are belittled even by those who hire them, and all the more so by others; as it is written that Jezebel said when she ordered witnesses to be hired to testify against Naboth: 鈥淎nd set two men, base fellows, before him, and let them bear witness against him, saying: You cursed God and the king鈥 (I聽Kings 21:10). Even Jezebel, who gave the orders to hire them, called them 鈥渂ase fellows.鈥

讗诐 讗诪专 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬 讻讜壮 注讚 砖讬讗诪专讜 讘驻谞讬谞讜 讛讜讚讛 诇讜 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 诇讜 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝

搂 The mishna teaches that if the witness said: The defendant said to me: It is true that I owe him, his testimony is disregarded unless he says: The defendant admitted in our presence to the plaintiff that he owes him two hundred dinars.

诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 爪专讬讱 砖讬讗诪专 讗转诐 注讚讬讬

The Gemara comments: This supports the opinion of Rav Yehuda, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The debtor needs to say to the witnesses to the loan or in his admission that he owes the creditor: You are my witnesses. Otherwise, their testimony is not valid.

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 壮诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱壮 讗诪专 诇讜 壮讛谉壮 诇诪讞专 讗诪专 诇讜 壮转谞讛讜 诇讬壮 讗诪专 壮诪砖讟讛 讗谞讬 讘讱壮 驻讟讜专

It was also stated that Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If one said to another: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, i.e., you owe me one hundred dinars, and the other said to him: Yes, and the next day the claimant said to him: Give it to me, if the other then said to him: I was teasing you, i.e., I did not mean it seriously when I said that I owed it to you, the respondent is exempt.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 壮诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱壮 讗诪专 诇讜 壮讛谉壮 诇诪讞专 讗诪专 诇讜 壮转谞讛讜 诇讬壮 讗诪专 诇讜 壮诪砖讟讛 讗谞讬 讘讱壮 驻讟讜专

This is also taught in a baraita: If one said to another: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the other said to him: Yes, and the next day the claimant said to him: Give it to me, if the other then said to him: I was teasing you, the respondent is exempt.

讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻诪讬谉 诇讜 注讚讬诐 讗讞讜专讬 讙讚专 讜讗诪专 诇讜 壮诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱壮 讗诪专 诇讜 壮讛谉壮 壮专爪讜谞讱 砖转讜讚讛 讘驻谞讬 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬壮 讗诪专 诇讜 壮诪转讬讬专讗 讗谞讬 砖诪讗 转讻驻讬谞讬 诇讚讬谉壮 诇诪讞专 讗诪专 诇讜 壮转谞讬讛讜 诇讬壮 讗诪专 诇讜 壮诪砖讟讛 讗谞讬 讘讱壮 驻讟讜专

And moreover, the respondent is exempt even in a case where the claimant hid witnesses for the respondent behind a fence so that the respondent would not see them, and said to him: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the respondent said to him: Yes, and the claimant then said to him: Do you wish to admit the debt in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so? And the respondent said to him: I am afraid to do so, lest you compel me to go to judgment, where, based on their testimony, you will be given the right to forcibly take the money from me whenever you want. But between you and me, I admit that I owe you. And the next day the claimant said to him: Give me the one hundred dinars that you admitted to owing me, and the respondent said to him: I was teasing you. The respondent is exempt because he can claim that he stated his admission only to appease the claimant temporarily, and did not mean to actually admit to owing the money, as he did not know that there were witnesses present.

讜讗讬谉 讟讜注谞讬谉 诇诪住讬转

But the judges do not advance a claim on behalf of an inciter, i.e., one who is accused of inciting others to idol worship.

诪住讬转 诪讗谉 讚讻专 砖诪讬讛 讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗诐 诇讗 讟注谉 讗讬谉 讟讜注谞讬谉 诇讜 讜讘讚讬谞讬 谞驻砖讜转 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讟注谉 讟讜注谞讬谉 诇讜 讜讗讬谉 讟讜注谞讬谉 诇诪住讬转

The Gemara asks: An inciter? Who mentioned anything about it? This matter was not discussed in the baraita. The Gemara answers: The baraita is incomplete, and this is what it is teaching: If the defendant did not advance a claim that he was teasing the plaintiff, the judges do not advance this claim for him. Apparently, he stated his admission seriously. But in cases of capital law, even if the defendant did not advance any claim on his own behalf, the judges advance a claim on his behalf. But the judges do not advance claims on behalf of an inciter.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪住讬转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诪讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 诪驻讬专拽讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬 砖讗谞讬 诪住讬转 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 诇讗 转讞诪诇 讜诇讗 转讻住讛 注诇讬讜

The Gemara asks: What is different about an inciter, that the court does not seek to deem him innocent? Rabbi 岣ma bar 岣nina says: I heard at the lecture of Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba that an inciter is different, as the Merciful One states concerning him: 鈥淣either shall you spare, neither shall you conceal him鈥 (Deuteronomy 13:9). In this unique case, the court is not required to try to deem him innocent.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 诪谞讬讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讟讜注谞讬谉 诇诪住讬转 诪谞讞砖 讛拽讚诪讜谞讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪诇讗讬 讛专讘讛 讟注谞讜转 讛讬讛 诇讜 诇谞讞砖 诇讟注讜谉 讜诇讗 讟注谉 讜诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诇讗 讟注谉 诇讜 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诇驻讬 砖诇讗 讟注谉 讛讜讗

Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣an says that Rabbi Yonatan says: From where is it derived that the judges do not advance a claim on behalf of an inciter? It is derived from the incident of the primordial snake who tempted Eve; he was the first inciter. As Rabbi Simlai says: The snake could have advanced many claims on its own behalf, but it did not claim them. And for what reason did the Holy One, Blessed be He, not advance these claims for it, deeming the snake exempt from punishment? Because the snake did not advance these claims itself.

诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诪专 讚讘专讬 讛专讘 讜讚讘专讬 转诇诪讬讚 讚讘专讬 诪讬 砖讜诪注讬谉 讚讘专讬 讛专讘 砖讜诪注讬谉

The Gemara asks: What could he have said? The Gemara answers: The snake could have said that it is not to blame, as when there is a contradiction between the statement of the teacher and the statement of the student, whose statement should one listen to? One should listen to the statement of the teacher. Since God instructed Adam and Eve not to eat from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, Adam and Eve should have heeded God鈥檚 words and not those of the snake.

讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 诪谞讬讬谉 砖讻诇 讛诪讜住讬祝 讙讜专注 砖谞讗诪专 讗诪专 讗诇讛讬诐 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 诪诪谞讜 讜诇讗 转讙注讜 讘讜

岣zkiyya says: From where is it derived that anyone who adds, subtracts? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated that Eve said: 鈥淕od has said: You shall not eat of it, neither shall you touch it鈥 (Genesis 3:3), whereas God had actually rendered prohibited only eating from the tree but not touching it, as it is stated: 鈥淏ut of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it鈥 (Genesis 2:17). Because Eve added that there was a prohibition against touching the tree, the snake showed her that touching it does not cause her to die, and she consequently sinned by eating from it as well.

专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讗诪转讬诐 讜讞爪讬 讗专讻讜

Rav Mesharshiyya says that the idea that one who adds, subtracts can also be proven from here: 鈥淭wo cubits [amatayim] and a half shall be its length鈥 (Exodus 25:10). Without the letter alef at the beginning of the word amatayim, it would be read matayim, which would mean two hundred cubits. The addition of the alef therefore reduces this term to only two cubits.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 注砖转讬 注砖专讛 讬专讬注转

Rav Ashi says another example: In the verse: 鈥淓leven [ashtei esrei] curtains鈥 (Exodus 26:7), without the letter ayin at the beginning of the phrase it would read shtei esrei, twelve. Therefore, the additional letter ayin reduces the amount from twelve to eleven.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讚讗诪专 诪砖讟讛 讗谞讬 讘讱 讗讘诇 讗诪专

Abaye says: With regard to the case of one who denies a debt to which he admitted in the presence of hidden witnesses, the Sages taught that he is exempt only in a case where he says: I was teasing you. But if he says:

诇讗 讛讬讜 讚讘专讬诐 诪注讜诇诐 讛讜讞讝拽 讻驻专谉

These matters never occurred, i.e., I never admitted to this, the defendant assumes the presumptive status of one who falsely denies his debts, as the witnesses heard his admission. Consequently, he is not trusted to take an oath that he is exempt.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讗讚讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讚讻讚讬 诇讗 讚讻讬专讬 讗讬谞砖讬

Rav Pappa, son of Rav A岣 bar Adda, says: This is what we say in the name of Rava: The defendant is not rendered a liar, because people do not remember all frivolous matters. Since the admission was not made seriously, perhaps the defendant forgot the incident. Therefore, his denial of its having occurred was not necessarily an outright lie.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗讻诪讬谉 诇讬讛 注讚讬诐 诇讞讘专讬讛 讘讻讬诇转讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谉 讗诪专 注讬专讬 讜砖讻讘讬 诇讬讛讜讜 注诇讱 住讛讚讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who hid witnesses in the canopy above his bed to hear the statement of another. That certain man said to him: I have one hundred dinars in your possession. The latter said to him: Yes. The claimant then said: Let those awake and those asleep bear witness about you, hoping to induce him to agree to this testimony, as the respondent might assume that everyone was asleep. The latter said to him: No. When the matter came to court Rav Kahana said: Since he said no to him, his admission did not render him liable.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗讻诪讬谉 注讚讬诐 讘拽讬讘专讗 诇讞讘专讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谉 讞讬讬 讜诪讬转讬 诇讬讛讜讜 注诇讱 住讛讚讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗

The Gemara relates another incident: There was a certain man who hid witnesses in a grave to hear the statement of another. That certain man said to him: I have one hundred dinars in your possession. The latter said to him: Yes. The claimant then said: Let the living and the dead bear witness about you. The respondent said to him: No. Rabbi Shimon said: Since he said no to him, his admission did not render him liable.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 驻驻讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讛讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 爪专讬讱 砖讬讗诪专 讗转诐 注讚讬讬 诇讗 砖谞讗 讻讬 讗诪专 诇讜讛 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讻讬 讗诪专 诪诇讜讛 讜砖转讬拽 诇讜讛 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讜讛 诇讗 讗讘诇 讗讬 砖转讬拽 讛讻讬 谞诪讬

Ravina said, and some say Rav Pappa said it: Conclude from it that with regard to that which Rav Yehuda says that Rav says, that one needs to say to the witnesses of the admission: You are my witnesses, there is no difference whether the debtor said it, and there is no difference whether the creditor said it and the debtor remained silent. The inference is that the reason the Sages deemed the purported debtor exempt in the above cases is that the debtor explicitly said no, i.e., that he does not accept the witnesses, but had he remained silent his admission would have indeed rendered him liable.

讛讛讜讗 讚讛讜讛 拽专讜 诇讬讛 拽讘 专砖讜 讗诪专 诪讗谉 诪住讬拽 讘讬 讗诇讗 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讗转讜 转讘注讜讛讜 诇讚讬谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man whom people called: A kav of debts, as everyone claimed debts from him, who once said: Who can claim debts from me, other than so-and-so and so-and-so? I do not owe money to as many as assumed. Those whom he admitted that he owed came and took him to judgment before Rav Na岣an to claim what he owed them, and he responded in court that his admittance was in jest.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讚诐 注砖讜讬 砖诇讗 诇讛砖讘讬注 讗转 注爪诪讜

Rav Na岣an said: A person is prone to make false statements so as not to make himself appear sated, i.e., it is possible that he might say falsely in public that he owes money in order that he should not be considered wealthy. Therefore, as long as he has not made a proper admission that he owes a specific sum to a specific individual, he is not liable.

讛讛讜讗 讚讛讜讜 拽专讜 诇讬讛 注讻讘专讗 讚砖讻讬讘 讗讚讬谞专讬 讻讬 拽讗 砖讻讬讘 讗诪专 驻诇谞讬讗 讜驻诇谞讬讗 诪住拽讜 讘讬 讝讜讝讬 讘转专 讚砖讻讬讘 讗转讜 转讘注讬谞讛讜 诇讬讜专砖讬谉

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man whom people called: A mouse that lies on dinars, as he was a miser who did not benefit from his money, like a mouse that sits and safeguards gold dinars. This man said on his deathbed: So-and-so and so-and-so claim dinars from me. After he died, they came and sued the heirs.

讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讚诐 注砖讜讬 砖诇讗 诇讛砖讘讬注 讗转 注爪诪讜 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诪讞讬讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 诇讗

They came to judgment before Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei. He said to them: When we say a person is prone to make false statements so as not to make himself appear sated, this statement applies to an admission during his lifetime. But after death, i.e., on his deathbed, this does not apply; rather, we presume he told the truth.

驻专注讜 驻诇讙讗 转讘注讬谞讛讜 诇讚讬谞讗 诇讗讬讚讱 驻诇讙讗 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻砖诐 砖讗讚诐 注砖讜讬 砖诇讗 诇讛砖讘讬注 讗转 注爪诪讜 讻讱 讗讚诐 注砖讜讬 砖诇讗 诇讛砖讘讬注 讗转 讘谞讬讜 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 谞讬讝讬诇 讜谞讬讛讚专 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻讘专 讛讜专讛 讝拽谉

The heirs paid half the amount of the claim. The claimants then sued them for the other half. They came to judgment before Rabbi 岣yya. Rabbi 岣yya said to them: Just as a person is prone to make false statements so as not to make himself appear sated, so too, a person is prone to make false statements so as not to make his sons appear sated. One might claim falsely on his deathbed that he owes money so that his children will not be considered wealthy. Therefore, there is no room for a claim against the heirs. The heirs then said to him: If so, let us go and overturn the former verdict, and retrieve the amount we paid the claimants. Rabbi 岣yya said to them: The elder, i.e., Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, has already issued a ruling in this case, and it is not in my power to overturn his ruling.

讛讜讚讛 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 讜拽谞讜 诪讬讚讜 讻讜转讘讬谉 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉

搂 If one made an admission in the presence of two witnesses that he owes money and they performed a formal act of acquisition with him to verify the admission, the witnesses can write a record of the admission in a document and sign it, thereby granting the creditor more rights. But if they did not perform a formal act of acquisition they may not write a record of the admission in a document, as the debtor presumably wants the loan to retain its status as a loan by oral agreement, which grants fewer rights to the creditor than a loan with a promissory note.

讘驻谞讬 砖诇砖讛 讜诇讗 拽谞讜 诪讬讚讜 专讘 讗诪讬 讗诪专 讻讜转讘讬谉 讜专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗 讜讞砖 诇讛 专讘 诇讛讗 讚专讘 讗住讬

If he made an admission in the presence of three witnesses and they did not perform a formal act of acquisition with him, Rav Ami says: They can write a record of the admission in a document. Since the admission was made in the presence of three individuals, who are considered a court, it is permitted for a court to write its verdicts. And Rav Asi says: They may not write it in a document; perhaps the debtor intended for them to serve only as witnesses, not as a court. There was an incident in which a person admitted his debt before three witnesses, and Rav was concerned for this opinion of Rav Asi, and ruled that they may not write a record of the admission.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讛讗 讗讜讚讬转讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讻转讘讬谞谉 讜讝讬诪谞讬谉 诇讗 讻转讘讬谞谉 讻谞讬驻讬 讜讬转讘讬 诇讗 讻转讘讬谞谉 讻谞驻讬谞讛讜 讗讬讛讜 讻转讘讬谞谉

Rav Adda bar Ahava says: With regard to this document of admission, sometimes we write it and sometimes we do not write it. If the three witnesses were gathered and sitting when the debtor made his admission before them, we do not write it, as perhaps he did not intend for them to serve as a court. But if the debtor gathered them, we write the document of admission, as the fact that he took care to bring three people and not just two proves that he intended for them to serve as a court.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讻谞驻讬谞讛讜 讗讬讛讜 诇讗 讻转讘讬谞谉 注讚 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讜讜 注诇讬 讚讬讬谞讬

Rava says: Even if he gathered them we do not write it, unless he says to them: Be my judges.

诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪专 讛讜讜 注诇讬 讚讬讬谞讬 诇讗 讻转讘讬谞谉 注讚 讚拽讘注讬 讚讜讻转讗 讜砖诇讞讬 讜诪讝诪谞讬 诇讬讛 诇讘讬 讚讬谞讗

Mar bar Rav Ashi says: Even if he says: Be my judges, we do not write it unless they establish a place for judgment and send messengers and summon him to court. Unless the entire procedure of an admission in court is implemented, the debtor may not have intended that they serve as a court with regard to this matter.

讛讜讚讛 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬 讜拽谞讜 诪讬讚讜 讻讜转讘讬谉 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讘诪拽专拽注讬 讜诇讗 拽谞讜 诪讬讚讜 诪讗讬 讗诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讗诪专 讻讜转讘讬谉 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讜转讘讬谉

If he made an admission with regard to movable property that he owes, and the witnesses performed a formal act of acquisition with him, they can write a record of the admission in a document; but if they did not perform a formal act of acquisition they may not write a record of the admission. But if he made an admission with regard to land, and they did not perform a formal act of acquisition with him, what is the halakha? Is it considered as though an act of acquisition was performed, as land is always available for collection? Ameimar says: They may not write it. Mar Zutra says: They may write it. And the halakha is that they may write it.

专讘讬谞讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇讚诪讛专讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讚诪讛专讬讗 诇专讘讬谞讗 诪讟诇讟诇讬 讜讗讬转谞讛讜 讘注讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诪拽专拽注讬 讚诪讜 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讞住专讬 讙讜讘讬讬谞讗 诇讗

Ravina happened to come to Damharya. Rav Dimi bar Rav Huna of Damharya said to Ravina: If one makes an admission that he owes movable property that is extant, i.e., it is available to be taken immediately, what is the halakha? Should it be considered like land, as it is similarly available for collection, and therefore the witnesses can write a record of the admission? Ravina said to him: It is considered like land. Rav Ashi says: Since it still lacks collection, i.e., it has not been physically transferred from one party to the other, it is not considered like land, and the witnesses may not write a record of the admission unless the debtor asks them to write it.

讛讛讬讗 讗讜讚讬转讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 讻转讜讘 讘讛 讗诪专 诇谞讗 讻转讘讜 讜讞转诪讜 讜讛讘讜 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖

搂 With regard to a certain document of admission in which the following statement was not written: He, the one making the admission, said to us: Write a deed, and sign it, and give it to the creditor, Abaye and Rava both say that this is a case in which the principle of Reish Lakish is applicable.

讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讞讝拽讛 讗讬谉 讛注讚讬诐 讞讜转诪讬谉 注诇 讛砖讟专 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 谞注砖讛 讙讚讜诇

As Reish Lakish says: There is a presumption that witnesses do not sign on the document unless the deal was transacted with each party being an adult, even if it is not mentioned explicitly in the document that the witnesses verified this. This reflects the principle that a document is not written by a scribe and signed by witnesses unless they know that the action to which it attests was performed appropriately. In light of this, the fact that a certain detail is missing from the wording of the document does not prove that the detail did not take place, as the action was presumably performed properly. Consequently, a document of admission lacking the sentence: He said to us: Write a deed, and sign it, and give it to the creditor, is valid.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讬 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讗谞谉 诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讜住驻专讬 讚讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讬讚注讬

Rav Pappi objects to this, and some say it is Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, who raises this objection: Is there anything that we, the Sages, do not know, and the scribes of the court do know? Since not all of the Sages are aware that the witnesses of an admission cannot write a deed of admission unless the one making the admission asks them to, the scribes certainly cannot be expected to ensure that this condition is fulfilled.

砖讗讬诇讬谞讛讜 诇住驻专讬 讚讗讘讬讬 讜讬讚注讬 诇住驻专讬 讚专讘讗 讜讬讚注讬

The Gemara relates that Abaye鈥檚 scribes were asked whether they were aware of this halakha, and they answered that they were aware of it. Rava鈥檚 scribes were also asked, and they were also aware of it. Apparently, since writing documents is their profession, scribes are aware of the relevant halakhot.

讛讛讬讗 讗讜讚讬转讗 讚讛讜讛 讻转讘 讘讬讛 讚讜讻专谉 驻讬转讙诪讬

The Gemara recounts: There was a certain document of admission in which it was written that it was a record of the proceedings that took place in the presence of the witnesses,

Scroll To Top